Is War Inevitable?

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 37, 7 November 1933, Page 11

Is War Inevitable?

I Sir, —Mr. G. F. Moore, in his letter of j October 30, states: “There must be come | means of avoiding over-population, and > surely war, cruel as it is. is preferable I to disease epidemics, which would be one |of the other alternatives.” Now, a corj respondent recently affirmed that physical science has immensely superseded social science. Medical science has approached to such a state that scientists are even now delving into the mysteries of life itself: but medical science cannot cure death, it cannot cure the shellshocked, the insane, and the maimed in a war. But it can, and will, be able to thore so iu the future, cure disease. There is only one method of avoiding over-popu-lation without war. and that is the obvious one; but a discussion on that method is out side the present subject. But Mr. Moore, in his letter, shows a slight discrepancy when he wishes us to revert to the old hand-to-hand style of fighting, for how then would war fulfil Mr. Moore’s apparently beneficial ideal of war’s destroying the surplus population? With regard to the question of an impending Pacific war. perhaps the best treatise on the subject is a section of Basil Matthew’s book, • “The Clash of Colour,” to which I refer anyone interested. One passage explains his policy. It runs: “If the white races of to-day deride and deny the claim of the yellow races to control increasingly the current of their own lives, if the white races gnore this rising tide of colour, the breakers of that tide will sweep and pound upon the- dykes until they crumble and decay ” He is against the selfish dog-in-the-manger policy of the exclusion of Asiatics from most nations by the leaders of those nations. Mr. Moore introduces a most interest- | ing question when he quotes examples i from Biblical history to show that even j in the greatest Book in the world there lis war. He quotes passages to show, that I Christ ordered war in some cases. -But I just exactly what are those passages ' meant to prove? Are they meant to I prove that war is justifiable because , Christ ordered it; or that peace is unat- . tainable because Christ ordered war, or I that we men have the »anetion of Christ in making war? Each of these doctrines is to be abhorred. We do not live under Parliament’s laws, but under the fundamental laws of Christ —the Ten Commandments. Christ expressly said: “Thou shalt not kill,” and it is inconceivable that this Prince of Peace, who sacrificed Himself for us, should wish us to break it.-I am. etc.. pRQ Lower Hutt. November 5. Si r .—Under the impulse of his pacifist idealism. “Pro Pace” is guilty of a quite astounding logic. He has- evidently no conception of reality, and takes refuge with so many of our neurotic moderns in the dream-world of adult infantihsmHis argument (quoted from his letter) falls under these heads: (1) “No (British) war has ever been created by anyone except the politicians. (2) 'They are the only people with great powers in a country.” (3) “There has been no war yet which has been the product of our economic system.” (4) “As we can produce no better system, as many recent events have proved, we must devise some other method of combating war.’ (5) “The real cause is the support of the people.” ... Now let me analyse this surprising “logic.” (1) The Wilson Administration led' America into the war immediately after winning an election on the basis of keeping out of it. ■ The change of front was due to pressure by big business to save the American loans to the Allies. (2) Has “Pro Pace” never heard of the notorious battle between! Pierpont Morgan I and President Teddy Roosevelt, when the President publicly acknowledged defeat? Why did Mr. Forhes change front on the exchange question? (3) Has our idealist never heard of the opium war—that black disgrace to the British name? (4) This is a mere dogmatic statement, denying the possibility of any eeonomic progress. Are we the last word? (5) Here “Pro Pace” displays his latent muddle-headedness. He refers to the “support of the people” as a secondary cause, and to “the support. of the nation" as a primary. Where is the difference? And what causes the people to support war? Surely the press which provides them with news and ideas —together with the schools, radio, films, and other organs of opinion-formation. And these are all in the hands of the. capitalistminded. To change them radically would be to change the whole State, and would rightly be termed seditious. Finally, does “Pro Pace” realise the irony of the fact that while we gaol such seditious persons here, we rely op their success in Japan for the support of the Pacific peace?—l am. etc.. ERIC COOK. Wellington. November 7.